DOCUMENT RESUME ED 394 840 SE 058 338 AUTHOR Halloun, Ibrahim; Hestenes, David TITLE Views About Sciences Survey: VASS. PUB DATE 1 Apr 96 NOTE 32p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (St. Louis, MO, March 31-April 3, 1996). PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) Speeches/Conference Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Higher Education; *Science Education; Sciences; Secondary Education; *Student Attitudes; Surveys ABSTRACT The Views About Sciences Survey (VASS) is a survey of student views about science for the purpose of assessing the influence of these views on learning. This paper discusses the survey's design, development, results, and implications for science education. The survey assesses student views along seven dimensions with a novel Contrasting Alternatives Design. It was administered in 23 states to about 8,000 high school and college students enrolled in physics, chemistry, and biology courses. Results indicate that students at all levels holi views about knowing and learning science that often diverge from the views of scientists and educators, student views differ according to discipline and across some demographic strata, and student views are hardly affected by traditional science instruction, but they affect what students learn in the course of such instruction. Contains 72 references. (Author) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ***********************************************************************
Transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 394 840 SE 058 338
AUTHOR Halloun, Ibrahim; Hestenes, DavidTITLE Views About Sciences Survey: VASS.PUB DATE 1 Apr 96NOTE 32p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching(St. Louis, MO, March 31-April 3, 1996).
PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)Speeches/Conference Papers (150)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Higher Education; *Science Education; Sciences;
Secondary Education; *Student Attitudes; Surveys
ABSTRACTThe Views About Sciences Survey (VASS) is a survey of
student views about science for the purpose of assessing theinfluence of these views on learning. This paper discusses thesurvey's design, development, results, and implications for scienceeducation. The survey assesses student views along seven dimensionswith a novel Contrasting Alternatives Design. It was administered in23 states to about 8,000 high school and college students enrolled inphysics, chemistry, and biology courses. Results indicate thatstudents at all levels holi views about knowing and learning sciencethat often diverge from the views of scientists and educators,student views differ according to discipline and across somedemographic strata, and student views are hardly affected bytraditional science instruction, but they affect what students learnin the course of such instruction. Contains 72 references.(Author)
************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
Ibrahim Hamm* eit David SestenesDepartment of Physics & Astronomy, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287-1504
* On leave from Lebanese University
Abstract
VASS is a survey of student views about science for thepurpose of assessing the influence of these views onlearning. This paper discusses the survey's design,development, results and implications for scienceeducation. Student views are assessed along sevendimensions with a novel Contrasting AlternativesDesign. In the last two years, VASS has beenadministered in 23 states to about 8,000 high school andcollege students enrolled in physics, chemistry andbiology courses. Results show that: (a) students at alllevels hold views about knowing and learning sciencethat often diverge from the views of scientists andeducators, (b) student views differ according todiscipline and across some demographic strata,(c) student views are hardly affected by traditionalscience instruction, but (d) they affect what studentslearn in the course of such instruction.
1,"A44
Contents
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION44..44.14,4,4
44,4 p44.0,
1144 .401' 4
A 40 0.4A.
. -.
141
1 ko'r41.4: 44M0
:0444Lr r
400 as
he' .-4.14. .
. . _0. 4 44. 00 ;. 4 4. 0040 -."1. u
11. r 4 #r N1,' 4th,I I ' tA
Objectives 2
Taxonomy 2
VASS with Contrasting Alternatives 4Validity 5
ReliabilityFeasibility 8
History of VASS 8
Results 10Student and Teacher Views on Individual Items 10
Student and Teather Profiles 13
Effect of Instruction on Student Views 15
Comparison of Student Views across Grades 16
Student Views and Achievement 18
Comparison of Student Views in Different Disciplines 20Comparison of Student Views across Demographic Strata 23
Conclusion 25
References 27
NARST Annual Meeting
April 1st, 1996
St. Louis, Missouri
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2 / Hattoun Ô Hutenes
Educational researchers have observed that students at all levels are encumbered with folkviews about the nature of science and science education that are incompatible with theviews of scientists and educators. Introductory science courses do little to change studentfolk views and, mote often than not, the changes are negative. Furthermore, students'achievement in science courses may be negatively affected by their folk views (Aikenheadet aL, 1987, 1988; Baker & Piburn, 1991; Cobern, 1993; Edmonson & Novak, 1993;Redish & Saul, 1995; Schibeci & Riley, 1986; Songer & Linn, 1991).
We have developed the Views About Sciences Survey (VASS) to explore andsystematize such observations, and we have administered it to thousands of high schooland college students across the USA. This paper discusses the survey's design,development, and results.
ObjectivesVASS has been developed to survey student views about knowing and learning science
and to assess their relation to student understanding of science. More specifically, VASSis designed to meet the following objectives:
1. To ascertain significant differences between the views of students, teachers andscientists.
2. To identify patterns in student views and classify them in general profiles.
3. To measure the effectiveness of instruction in changing student views and profiles.4. To compare student views/profiles at various grade levels (8-16).5. To assess the relation between student views/profiles and achievement.6. To ascertain differences in the views/profiles of students in the various sciences
(physics, chemistry, biology,...).7. To compare student views/profiles across various demographic strata.
TaxonomyTo identify major issues that should be addressed by VASS, we reviewed related
works in the relevant literature, including the following:1. Scholarly views on the epistemology of science (e.g., Bernard, 1865; Bunge, 1973;
Schibeci & Riley, 1986; Schmidt, 1967; Simpson & Oliver, 1985; Songer & Linn,1991; Welch & Pella, 1967).In constructing a taxonomy of the issues we identified, we sought to avoid: (a) arcane
and problematic questions about the epistemology of science, and (b) bias toward our ownposition (Ha lloun, 1996a & b; Hestenes, 1992). We devised one VASS instrument afteranother to assess student views on the targeted issues, and we kept refining our taxonomyand the VASS items based on:1. Peer review.2. Students' answers on VASS items (as well as teachers'), and their relation to course
achievement and performance on content-based conceptual surveys like the ForceConcept Inventory (Hestenes et al., 1992).
3. Interviews with respondents.We finally settled on four epistemological dimensions and three pedagogical
dimensions. The epistemological dimensions pertain to the structure and validity of scientificknowledge, scientific methodology, and role of mathematics in science. The pedagogicaldimensions pertain to learnability of science, critical thinldng, and personal relevance ofscience. To assess variability in student views in different disciplines, we constructedparallel forms of VASS along these dimensions for physics, chemistry and biology.
Each of the seven dimensions is framed below in the form of pairs of contrasting viewsabout science or science education that our analysis revealed to be the most prevalent. Theprimary view, hereafter referred to as the expert view, is the one we found to be mostcommon among scientists and educators. The opposing view, hereafter referred to as thefolk view, is often held by the lay community and science students at all grade levels.
I . Structure: Science is a coherent body of knowledge about patterns in naturerevealed by careful investigation
rather than a loose collection of directly perceived facts.
2 . Methodology: The methods of science are systematic and genericrather than idiosyncratic and situation specific.
3 . Validity: Scientific knowledge is approximate, tentative, and refutablerather than exact, absolute and fmal.
4 . Mathematics is a tool used by scientists for describing and analyzing ideasrather than a source of factual knowledge.
Mathematical modeling for problem solving involves morethan selecting mathematical formulas for number crunching.
5 . Learnabiity: Science is learnable by anyone willing to make the effortnot just by a few talented people.
Achievement depends more on personal effortthan on the influence of teacher or textbook.
6 . Critical Thinking: For meaningful understanding of science, one needs to:(a) concentrate more on the systematic use of principles
than on memorizing facts;
April 1996
4 / Hatroun de Sestenes
(b) examine situations in many waysinstead of following a single approach from an authoritative source;
(c) look for discrepancies in one's own knowledgeinstead of just accumulating new information.
(d) reconstruct new subject knowledge in one's own wayinstead of memoriemg it as given.
7. Personal relevance: Science is relevant to everyone's lifeIt is not of exclusive concern to scientists.
Science should be studied more for personal benefitthan for just fulfilling curriculum requirements.
VASS with Contrasting AlternativesTraditional assessment instruments present items in one of two formats: (a) open (or
constructed) response, or (b) objective (or selected) response. Open formats lilminterviews and essays can be valuable and infonnative means of assessment for purposes likeours. However, they are not feasible for large populations. Objective formats like multiple-choice and Likert scale are more practical and cost-efficient. However, research indicates thatthey encounter insuperable validity and reliability problems when used in surveying students'views about science (Halloun, 1994; Krynowsky, 1988; Munby, 1983; Rennie & Parker,1987; Symington & Spurling, 1990).
For VASS, we needed a valid and reliable testing format that could be used to surveylarge populations efficiently. Since no traditional format meets all three criteria: validity,reliability and feasibility, we devised a new item format that requires respondents to balancebetween two contrasting alternatives. We kept refming our items until we were satisfiedthat we have an instrument meeting all three criteria.
Figure 1 shows one pedagogical item and one epistemological item from VASS FormP 11 for physics. Each item consists of a statement followed by two contrasting alternativeswhich respondents are asked to balance on an eight-point scale. They can pick eitheralternative exclusively (options 1 or 7), a weighted combination of the two (options 2, 3, 4,5, or 6), or neither one (option 8). Advantages of the Contrasting Alternatives Design(CAD) and other features of VASS are discussed below.
For me, doing well in physics courses depends on:(a) how much effort I put into studying.(b) how well the teacher presents the material.
The laws of physics are:(a) inherent in the nature of things and independent of how humans think.(b) invented by physicists to organize their knowledge about the natural world.
Answer Options0 Only (a), Never (b); (2) Mostly (a), Rarely (b); 0 More (a) Than (b); 0 Equally (a) & (b);
0 Mote (b) Than (a); ® Mostly (b), Rarely (a); e Only (b), Never (a); ® Neither (a) Nor (b)
Figure 1: Sample CAD items from VASS Form P11.
NARST
VASS / 5
Validity
1. Content issuesPeople have difficulty thinking about any issue in the abstract It is always easier to
think within the context of a familiar situation, and the narrower the context the better.Contrary to common practice in the design of traditional instruments for assessing studentviews about science, VASS: (a) asks questions about specific disciplines, (b) narrowsissues in a given question down to a single factor in a given dimension, and (c) is restrictedto issues that are within the scope of target populations.
As a rule, surveys that we have examined ask questions about "science" in general. Wesuspected that student opinions would differ according to discipline, so we designeddifferent VASS forms for different disciplines (biology, chemistry and physics, so far), butpreserving the seven dimensions of our taxonomy.
Student views about science vary not only between disciplines, but also within adiscipline. Student epistemological views often vary from one theory to another within thesame science or even from one law to another within the same theory. Where appropriate,VASS accounts for students' sensitivity to content by asking the same question in morethan one context within the same science. In this regard, Figure 2 gives examples ofdifferent ways to ask a question.
Traditional instruments often address several factors in a single question (Fig. 3). InVASS, each question concentrates on a single factor within a given dimension as can beseen in Figures 1 and 2, and as it will become more evident in the course of our discussion.
Traditional instruments also often address issues that are beyond students' purview andexperience (The test called TOUS in Figure 3 has been administered to fifth graders!). Suchquestions have little utility, and are thus avoided in VASS.
Science Process Inventory - Form C (Welch & Pella, 1967):Once a statement of science becomes a law of science, it will not be changed.
(Agree / Disagree).
Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (Rubba & Andersen, 1978):Today's scientific laws, theories, and concepts may have to be changed in theface of new evidence. (Likert Scale)
VASS Form P11:Newton's laws of motion:
(a) will always be used as they are by physicists.(b) will eventually be replaced by other laws.
Physicists' currant ideas about the types of particles making up the atom:(a) will always be maintained by physicists.(b) will eventually be replaced by other ideas.
Figure 2: VASS asks about the falsifiability of science in specific contexts rather than inthe abstract as in traditional instruments.
April 1996
6 / Maoun de Mutates
Test Of Understanding of Science (Cooley and Klopfer, 1961):A scientific theory should:
A. provide the final solution to scientific problems.B. suggest directions for making useful things.C. tie together and explain many natural events.D. suggest good rules for carrying out experiments.
* considered as "best response" by the authors of TOUS.
Germann (1988):
Science makes me feel uncomfortable, restless, irritable, and impatient.
(Liken scale)
Figure 3: Sample traditional questions addressing many factors in each question.
2. InterpretationPopular test formats such as the Liken scale are often open to a wide variety of
interpretations by respondents as well as by researchers. Two respondents may expressopposite positions on a Likert item for the same reason, or the same position forcontradictory reasons (Aikenhead, 1988). When presented in a CAD format, respondentsare focused on the context within which they need to answer a given question, and so areresearchers in interpreting responses.
Essay and Liken questions can be misleading, especially when students' priorities orvalue judgments are not the same as researchers', which is often the case. When VASS wasfirst administered in essay format, students were asked in one of the questions to state thefirst thing they do in solving a physics problem. The student in Figure 4 replied that hestarts by looking for the appropriate formula. When interviewed, it became evident that therust thing this student actually does in solving a physics problem is draw diagrams, but thisprocedure seemed so trivial for him that he thought it was not worth mentioning in hiswritten response. Had the question been asked in a Liken format:
The first thing I do when solving a physics problem is to search for formulasthat relate givens to unknowns,
this student would have undoubtedly agreed with the statement Had the same questionbeen asked differently in the same format, such as
The first thing I do when solving a physics problem is to represent the situationwith sketches and drawings,
the same student would have also agreed with the statement Thus, contradictory resultswould be obtained with two Liken items that are supposedly intended to measure the samething. CAD rectifies the situation by providing the two contrasting statements and askingstudents to express their position relative to both (Item 13 in Form P11):
The first thing I do when solving a physics problem is:
(a) represent the situation with sketches and drawings.
(b) search for formulas that relate givens to unknowns.
NARST
VASS / 7
I: Describe what you normally do when solving a physics problem. List all steps youoften follow, in order.
S: First step in any problem would be to read the problem and list what's given andwhat you need, variables or what not. And the next step would be to find formulasthat indude these variables. And then, the third would be to solve for the unknowns.That's basically it.
I: So this would be an algorithm you would work through in any kind of problem?
S: Basical4f, I would agree. It's a basic general, general outline of how to solve aproblem.
I: Do you ever consider drawing some kind of a diagram?
S: Uh-huh... I'd consider that helpful, yeah, I'd probably include that in step one. Draw,label, find out what you have and don't have.
I: So that becomes then, your first step.
S: Uh-huh.
I: Would that be true for any kind of problem?
S: Visualfration helps a lot. I would say it would be a good step to iy in any problem. Ifyou can't visualize it, I wouldn't try to draw it. Yeah, I would agree that would have tobe helpful for any kind of problem.
I: Do you usually do it?
S: Do I do it? Usually yes. It's almost asked of us in physics class: force diagrams, freebody diagrams. I would say they're probal* most helpful. I would say, yeah.
Figure 4: Excerpt from an interview with a university physics student.
The content and face validity of VASS were assessed by a number of experts in thefield. Where appropriate, items were refmed until they were unanimously accepted byreviewers. VASS was also administered to a number of high school and college teachers.The trend in the majority of teachers' responses did not diverge significantly from ourtaxonomy (details in the Results section).
Interviews with some high school and college students revealed that they understoodboth the questions and the type of answer. Some confessed that it took a few minutes tograsp the CAI) format since they were not familiar with it. But then they all said that theformat helped them focus their thinking on the issues at hand. Moreover, they all expressedan understanding of, and a satisfaction with, the eight point scale, especially the distinctionbetween options 2 and 3, and options 5 and 6, which they thought helped them betterexpress their position.
Reliability
1 . Internal reliabilityInternal reliability of an instrument is traditionally measured with coefficients like
Cronbach Alpha or Kuder-Richardson, or with factor analysis. Classical reliabilityassessment though requires "scoring" items in a way that may not be applicable to VASS.Item Response Theory provides alternative assessment means which in principle do not
April 1996
8 / 5tatoun o Nestenu
require traditional scoring. We are currently exploring various alternatives for assessing theinternal validity of VASS within the framework of either classical theory and IRT.
2 . External reliabilityResponses on similar items in the consecutive VASS forms were compared for students
enrolled in the same courses at the same institutions. No significant differences weredetected in the patterns of students' answers.
FeasibilityVASS is efficient in the sense that its CAD format allows one to assess student views
with the least effort possible on the part of both administrators and participants, and withminimal cost.
The VASS format is flexible enough to allow administration in various settings (insideor outside the classroom) and via different means (e.g., paper-and-pencil orelectronically).Classroom administration of any VASS form takes 30 minutes at most. As a paper-and-pencil instrument, VASS consists of reusable questionnaires accompanied by scannabledouble-sided VASS Answer Sheets of our own design. Answers are marked on a singleanswer sheet, and sheets are scanned and data transferred to our computers in a format thatallows us to readily process them with any statistical analysis software.
History of VASSFigure 5 outlines the history of VASS as it evolved over more than two years from an
essay type survey to a CAD type. Following a review of major works in the epistemologyof science, cognition, national science standards, and educational research related to ourwork (references in the preceding section), we developed a preliminary taxonomy of expertand folk views about science and learning. The taxonomy was then revised with a numberof experts in the field, and an essay-type instrument was devised and administered inDecember 1993 to a sample of 41 college physics students. Following analysis of studentresponses on the instrument and interviews with some of the students, separate but parallelopen CAD VASS forms were designed for physics, astronomy, chemistry and biology.
In the open CAD format, an item was presented in the form of a statement followed bytwo contrasting alternatives. Respondents were asked to balance the two positions on aeight-point scale, as in Figure 1. However, when they chose neither alternative (option 8),they had to write their own answer. Furthermore, students had to explain any option theychose in their own words. Two forms of 27 questions each were then developed for eachof the four disciplines (physics, astronomy, chemistry and biology). One form addressedissues related to the epistemology of the discipline (dimensions 1 through 4 above, andothers); the other, issues related to teaching and learning that discipline (dimensions 5, 6,7, and others). Moreover, respondents' educational and social backgrounds weredocumented, as well as their expectations about the courses in which they were enrolled.
The open CAD VASS forms were administered in the spring of 1994 to 754 highschool and college students. Following analysis of VASS responses and interviews withsome students, the two forms in each discipline were refmed (except for astronomy whichis still on the back burner), and items were transformed to a CAD format where studentswere required to balance the two alternatives on the same eight-point scale as before.
NARST
1 0
VASS / 9
However, respondents were not asked to provide their own answer if they were notsatisfied with the alternatives, or to justify their answers. They marked their answers onscannable answer sheets of our own design.
The new forms were administered in the 94-95 academic year to 3,490 high school andcollege students, and evaluated in the same way as their predecessors. Furthermore, therelationship was analyzed between students' responses on VASS on the one hand, andtheir final grades in their respective courses and, in the case of physics, their performanceon a standardized conceptmal instrument, the Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes et al.,1992), on the other hand. Consequently, the taxonomy of VASS was refined, and the twoforms in each discipline were replaced by a single form of 33 CAD items each. Thus far,the latest VASS forms (P11 for physics, C11 for chemistry, and B11 for biology) havebeen administered in the 95-96 academic year to 3,686 high school and college studentsenrolled in 44 institutions (4 of which are universities) in 23 states.
TheoreticalFramework
a. ResearchReview
va------Expert / FolkTaxonomy Reviewers 4
Fall 19930-
Spring 1994
Fall 94 & Spring 95
VASSEssay-type
1 form
VASSOpen CAD
2 forms
Fall 95 & Spring 96
Figure 5: Evolution of VASS.
VASSCAD
2 forms
VASSCAD
1 form
Summer 1996
Stat. Analysiss,
Interviews
tTargetSamples
Dissemination
April 1996
10 / Matfolin Sestenu
ResultsThe objectives presented at the beginning of the paper are assessed in this section. In
order not to burden the reader with unnecessary details from different forms, we willillustrate our discussion with results from only VASS Form P1 1 for physics until we get tothe comparison of student views in various disciplines. Furthermore, we restrict reportedresults to: (a) VASS forms used mostly in the current academic year 95-96 (P11, C11, andB11) for comprehensive results, and (b) one pedagogical dimension (critical thinking) andone epistemological dimension (structure), and one question within each dimension(questions 17 and 23 respectively), for itemized results. Unless otherwise specified, alldata pertain to VASS pretests administeret; at the beginning of a course.
In reporting and discussing data, we will refer to one of the two alternatives in anygiven VASS item as the expert view, and the other as the folk view. In general, analternative is referred to as the expert view if we believe that it is shared by scientists andeducators at large and if it was favored by a majority of high school teachers and universityprofessors who were administered VASS (details in the next two sections). Except for afew items*, the majority of the respondents in question was in agreement with the originalclassification of the alternatives that we had agreed upon with our reviewers (Figure 5).
Student and Teacher Views on Individual ItemsVASS was given to a number of high school and college teachers in some participating
institutions in order to: (a) establish baseline data for experts, and (b) compare students'views to their teachers'. Figure 6 shows how participating high school and college physicsstudents and their teachers answered questions 17 and 23 respectively in Form P11.
Figure 6 shows that, when a student fails to solve a problem correctly (Item 17), 90%of 48 high school physics teachers and 89% of 26 college physics professors prefer that thestudent try more often to figure out how her/his method of solution differs from the onepresented by the teacher (alternative (b)), rather than memorize the latter by rote. Incontrast, teachers' position that students should learn science dialectically and not byrote from authority is shared by only 57% of 2,110 high school students (grades 9through 12) who took VASS Form P11, and by 64% of their 351 college peers enrolled inintroductory level physics courses.
* The following two items were somewhat controversial, especially among university professors:21. The laws of physics are:
(a) inherent in the nature of things and independent of how humans think.(b) invented by physicists to organize their knowledge about the natural world.
24. Newton's laws of motion:(a) will always be used as they are by physicists.(b) will eventually be replaced by other laws.
In item 21, 50% were more inclined towards alternative (a), and 31% towards (b). The restfavored equally both alternatives. We are more in favor of (b), which we consider in this paperto be the expert view.
In item 24, 58% were more inclined towards alternative (a), and 33% towards (b). Wehappen to disagree on this particular item. One of us (DID feels strongly in favor of (a), theother (IH) feels more in favor of (b). We will rewrite this particular item in a way that wouldclearly keep (b) the expert view.
NARST
VASS / 11
Percentage or High School Respondents
atSti
to
. i I [116
OaN (a)
VASS P11Item 17
1-12.110Students
ga feathers
Oft 04 tahlit
Percentage of cottage respondents
70
50
40
30
20
10
0Ecru*(a) & (b)
29
19
12
VASS PIIItem 17
361 S's
ai 29 Profs.
1 7 . After the teacher solves a physics problem for which I got a wrong solution on my own:(a) I discard my solutiorrand learn the one presented by the teacher.(b) I try to figure out how the teacher's solution differs from mine.
Percentage of College Rescadents
Percentage cf Heah School Respondeits
50
40
33
0
23. Physicists say that electrons and protons exist in an atom because:(a) they have seen these particles with their instruments.(b) their observations can be explained by such particles.
VASS P11
Item 23
Students
II Professors
Figure 6: Response distributions of high school and college students and teachers onitems 17 and 23 in VASS Form P11.
Similar discrepancies between teachers and students are observed in item 23 whereinthe expert view that sciennfic knowledge is not necessarily about directly perceivedfacts in the real world is shared by 85% of high school teachers and 74% of collegeprofessors, as opposed to 52% and 58% of their students respectively.
Overall, the percentage of high school teachers who were inclined more towards expertviews than folk views ranged from 71% to 96% on all but four VASS items for which thepercentage was at or below 50%. The percentage of college professors showing aninclination toward expert views ranged from 73% to 100% on the various items except forthe controversial ones discussed in the previous page. In contrast, the percentage ofstudents who shared the expert views on the various VASS items ranged from 17% to 74%in high school, and from 14% to 78% in college. The number of items in which over 50%of students expressed expert views was 14 in high school and 16 in college (out of 33items), with 13 items in common.
Figure 7 shows boxplots comparing responses of college professors and students on all33 items of VASS Form P11. As can be seen in this figure:
;1April 1996
12 / Saffoun dr Hestents
Response option chosen by college physics professors
W -1 1_t rt
0
.1-
-t-
.44
a
ttt t t ttrttt
Response option chosen by college physics students
e
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3
2
TT1 I
I I
11111.1.:11,-,Litt a
ow ow 4. er
111111410
0.111.11
1234567890111213141516171619M22223242526272633)3132MVASS P11 Item Number
Figure 7: Boxplots showing response distributions of college physics professors (top)and students (bottom) on all items of VASS Form P11.
Each box stretches from the 251h percentile to the 75th percentile of respondents on a given item, with the medianshown by a horizontal line inside the box. When the line is doser to we end of a box than another, the data are skewed in
the direction of the far end. lines drawn from the ends of a box (often called whiskers) stretch out to the smallest orlamest value that are not Whets. Outliers, shown by squares, conespond to responses given by small proportions ofrespondents and stretching out over 1.5 box-lengths from the 25th or 75th percentiles. Extreme and rarest cases,shown by crosses, stretch out over 3 box-lengths from these percentiles. For a better understanding of boxplots,please compare items 17 and 23 in this figure and respective data in Figure 6.
Arrows in the top figure indicate items for which alternative (a) is the expert view. Alternative (b) is the expert viewfor the rest of the items.
1. Students' responses often show a larger spread on both sides of the median thanprofessors' responses.
2. Professors' responses are narrowly clustered near the median on all but five items.These are items 21, 24, 25, 26, and 33. Except for items 21 and 24 (cf. footnote onpage 10), all medians are closer to expert views than folk views.
3. Professors' responses are far more polarized than students' responses. Responseoption 4 (equally both alternatives) occupies the median for only one item (No. 31) inprofessors' responses, whereas it does the same for 14 items in students' responses. Atleast 25% of college students chose option 4 on these 14 items.
NARST1 4
VASS / 13
Responses of high school teachers were a little more spread out about the median thancollege professors, and their inclination toward expert views was often not as close to theextreme options (1 or 7). The same was true about high school students by comparison tocollege students.
A preliminary comparison of students' views to their teachers' views on individualitems revealed no clear correlation. Detailed analysis of the effect of teachers' views ontheir students will be made after we receive all posttest data for high school students by theend of this year.
Student and Teacher ProfilesIn addition to analyzing respondent positions on individual items, we were also
interested in fmding out to what extent these views were consistent on various items in agiven dimension and in an entire VASS form. Consequently, we tried to: (a) find outwhether students can be classified according to a limited number of profiles, eachcharacterized by specific views on various items in a given dimension and in all sevendimensions, and (b) if so, analyze how these profiles affect student understanding ofscience and classroom achievement. Since at the time this paper was being prepared, wedid not have the profile analysis completed yet, we report in this section the outcomes ofthe first stage of this analysis. This stage consisted of examining how consistentrespondents were in expressing an inclination toward the expert view or toward the folkview across items in the chosen two dimensions and in the entire VASS Form P11.
To simplify the consistency analysis at this point, we have lumped all three responseoptions oriented towards either alternative, i. e., response options 1, 2, & 3, for alternative(a) and options 5, 6, & 7 for alternative (b). Respondents who chose one of three optionscorresponding to an expert view in a given item will be referred to as showing an experttendency. Those who chose an option corresponding to the folk view will be referred to asshowing a folk tendency. Those who picked option 4 (Equally (a) & (b)) will be referredto as showing a mixed tendency. At this point in time, we are still trying to fmd outwhether it is appropriate to score VASS, and if so, what would be the appropriate scheme.Therefore, results of our profile analysis can only be reported in an exploratory form.
As shown in Figure 8, fewer than 1% of students in each group showed an experttendency on all nine items of the Critical Thinking dimension. 2% of high school studentsand 5% of college students showed the same tendency on all six items of the Structuredimensions. On the other hand, only 7% of students in each group did not show a folktendency in any item of the Critical Thinking dimension, and 22% in each group did thesame in the Structure dimension. As for the mixed tendency, it was expressed by 0.1% ofhigh school students and none of college students in all items of the first dimension, and by0.5% and 0.3% respectively in all items of the second dimension.
In contrast, 43% of high school teachers, and 42% of college professors showed anexpert tendency on all items of the Critical Thinking dimension, and 20% and 38%respectively did the same on all items of the Structure dimension (Top inserts in Figutt 8).On the other hand, 77% of high school teachers and 73% of university professors did notexpress a tendency towards folk views in any item of the first dimension, and 38% and46% respectively did the same in the second dimension. As for the mixed tendency, it wasnot expressed consistently on all items of either dimension by any high school or collegeteacher.
The picture would look a little brighter if we focus on respondent consistency in at leasthalf the items in a given dimension (5 or more for Critical Thinking, 3 or more forStructure). 31% of high school students and 40% of college students showed an expert
April 1996
14 / Oafroun Mextenu
tendency on 5 items or more in the Critical Thinking dimension, 60% and 70% respectivelydid the same on 3 items or more in the Structure dimension (the figures drop to 33% and46% respectively for 4 items or more).
In contrast, and as shown in the top inserts in Figure 8, 87% of high school teachersand 96% of college professors expressed a tendency towards expert views on 5 items ormore in the Critical Thinking dimension, 96% of both groups did the same on 3 items ormore in the Structure dimension (81% and 85% respectively on 4 items or more).
Figure 9 shows the distributions of high school and college students who expressed atendency towards expert views on a given number of items in the entity VASS form P11.As can be seen in this figure, not a single high school or college student showed consistentexpert tendencies on all 33 items. Similarly, no student expressed consistent folk views onall items. The maximum number of items on which students expressed a tendency towardsexpert views was 31 in high school (1 student out of 2,110), and 27 in college (1 studentout of 351). The corresponding median number was 15 items for both groups. Studentswho showed an expert tendency on over half the items (17 items or more) constituted 34%of the high school group and 40% of the college group.
As for teachers, and as shown in the top inserts in Figure 9, no one in high school and12% in college expressed consistent tendency toward expert views on all 33 items. Themedian was 21 for high school teachers and 26 for college professors. Expert tendency onover half the items was shown by 90% of high school teachers and 96% of collegeprofessors.
Percentage cd High School Students
21
10
3
0
Percentage of High School Students
1930 27
17 16
101 I I
4
0.35
9
'1 2 9 4 5
t')1/2 'd1 871 422
7 8 9
Number of keno with expert view in Critical Thinkkig 0 1 2 3 4Nunter of tens with expert view about the Structure of Science
13
io
2MIPS
Percentage of College StudentsS9$ ..,:r7S
20 1 '' '::..42:,is 19
15
a
40 '96
10
6...
0.6
Percentage30
20
10
of College Students
2
9
2s
11)-46,-.'85
,- -
6, Ma
0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9Number of items with exxert view le Critical Thinlang
oo 1 2 3 4 5 $
Number of Items with expert New about the Structwe ot Science
Figure 8: Distributions of high school and college students showing expert tendency on agiven total number of items in Critical Thinking and Structure.Top Insefts show the percentage of students (Vs) and teachers (Ts) who expressed an experttendency on all Items (top row) or on more than half the items (bottom row) in a given dimension.
NARST1 E;
VASS / 15
Percentage of High School Students
10
5
9
0.2
0 2 4
One studentout of 2,110
0.4
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 31
Percentage of College Students1 9
0.3 0.3
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 27Total number of items with expert views on the entire VASS Form P11
Figure 9: Distributions of high school and college students showing expert tendency on agiven total number of items in the entire VASS Form P11.Top inserts show the percentage of students (S's) and teachers (Ts) who expressed an experttendency on all items (top row) or on at least 17 items (bottom row) in the entire VASS form.
Effect of Instruction on Student ViewsIn order to assess the effectiveness of instruction, the same forms of VASS have been
administered in some courses as pretests at the beginning of a semester (or of a year, inhigh schools) and as posttests at the end. Figure 10 compares pretest-posttest responses onitems 17 and 23 given by physics high school students last academic year.
Figure 10 shows clearly no significant change in participating students' views on items17 and 23. In fact, there is a minor change in the folk direction. High school students'views were more inclined towards folk views after instruction than before instruction. Thesame kind of shift was apparent in a majority of VASS items. Overall, we can draw thefollowing conclusions that are further discussed in the next section:
1. Traditional physics instruction has no significant effect on student views aboutscience.
2. On most VASS items, students tend to shift a little more toward folk views thanexpert views, after instruction.
April 1996
16 / Saffoun de Mutest,
Pefaudege of High School Students
10
Retest11 postest
1-1111 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 Response ogdon
01* EOM Orgy (b) co Item 17
& (&) Even wew VASS Fon P11
Percentage of HO School Students
20
1G
3 4 5E*101*(&) &
Reted
n1111 Netted7 8 &Rpm optkin
ores (b) co Nem 23Ecgit vow VASS Fenn P11
Figure 10: Pretest-posttest comparison of physics high school students' responses onitems 17 and 23.
Comparison of Student Views across GradesVASS is being administered in grades 9 through 12 in high schools, and at the
freshman and sophomore levels in college. Figure 11 compares students' responses onitems 17 and 23 in various high school and college physics courses. The first rowcompares responses of all participating high school and college students on both items(originally shown separately in Figure 6). The second row compares responses of highschool students in the most common three physics courses, labeled as "Regular" (lowestlevel), "Honors" (upper level, offered in many high schools to honor students), and "AP".The third row compares responses of college students in the most common threeintroductory courses: one elementary course offered to non-science majors, a higher levelalgebra-based course offered to science majors outside physics and engineering, and acalculus-based course normally offered to physics and engineering majors.
As can be seen in the first row of Figure 11, overall, there are no significant differencesbetween high school and college students' views. However, more high school studentsthan college students showed a mixed tendency (option 4), and more college students thanhigh school students showed an exclusive preference for the expert view (option 7). Theshift is gradual across options 5 and 6. This trend of shifting gradually from a mixedtendency to an expert tendency as students go from high school to college wascharacteristic of most VASS items. However, there was virtually no shift from a folktendency towards an expert tendency on any item.
The latter outcome depicted in Figure 11 seems not to be consistent with the outcomedepicted in Figure 10. After completing high school physics courses, students drift a littlecloser to folk views than expert views (Figure 10). However, college students start theirintroductory physics courses inclined a little more towards expert views than high schoolstudents (Figure 11). There is at least one possible explanation for the apparentinconsistency. Not all high school students enter college. It is more likely that those who doare more competent and motivated than those who do not, and the more competent studentsare generally more inclined toward expert views as will be shown in the next section.
The same trend appears across the three high school courses with AP students gettingcloser to the expert views (2nd row in Figure 11), and across the three college courses withstudents enrolled in calculus-based courses going in the same direction (3rd row in Figure11). However, the differences within each group are not significant and not as big asbetween groups. This was virtually true for all VASS items.
NARST
lb
VASS / 17
Percerdege of students
2 2, 2 3 4 7 8 Response aptbn
OnV (11) Equally 011y 34 ott kern 17fie A OS aped Wow VASS Rem PI 1
Percentage of High School Students
30
29
10
2 $ 4
Percentage of College Students
30
20
10
NetsCourse
0 Regular111 Honors
Ei AP
5 8 7 8 ttem 17
Percentage al sextette30
10
8 65
7
27
23
18
1 2 3 4 5Ofity (4) Equdy
& (b)
Percentage et Higtt School Students
30
20
10
0 nal1
Percentage of College Students
2 OHO School
rp 1110c66987 8 Rev:me *Ion
0461 08 on Nem 23Send War VASS Foni r311
Inriceixtory 30
Physics Course
DNonScience111Algebrabased 20
MCakelue-based
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Item 17
10
IttroductayPhysh Comae
1:1 N3n-Scieree
Atelue-basedCalcukts-based
8 !tern 23
Figure 11: Comparison of high school and college students' responses on items 17 and23 in VASS Form P11.
Figure 8 compares the performance of the same groups of students on all the items ofthe Critical Thinking and Structure dimensions in VASS Form P11, and Figure 9 comparesthe overall performance of participants on the entire form. Again these two figures, alongwith other results reported in the respective results section, show that college students aremore inclined towards expert views than high school students. However, differenceswithin groups and between the two groups are not significant with respect toindividual items or to the consistency in expressing one tendency type or another.
April 1996
18 / Wattoun cfr. Hestenu
Percentage ot ligh School Studants
30
20
10
o
iI
1
i 2 .3 .4 .5 i :7
Response option on kern 17
Percentage of College Students
Percentage of High School Students30
20
Grade10
A A
o B & C
t * D & F 0
i
1
6 7 8
Response option on kern 17 In VASS Form Pll
Grade
A
o B & C
* 0 & F
1
r
I'iii4 io 7 e
Response optIon on item 23
Percentage of College Students
10
# i1
5 6 7 8
Reapcese optlon on kern 23 In VASS Form P11
Grede
A
0 13/4C
a D&F
Grade
A
o B & C
*D&F
Figure 12: Distribution of high school and college students' physics grades acrossresponse options on items 17 and 23 in VASS Form P11.
Student Views and AchievementEducational researchers have often speculated that students' views about knowing and
learning science affect their understanding of what they are being taught in science courses.In order to test this speculation, we assessed the relationship between students'performance on VASS on the one hand, and their performance on standardized conceptualinstruments like the Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes et al, 1992) and their fmal gradesin their courses of enrollment, on the other hand. Different teachers have different teachingapproaches and different grading schemes. Furthermore, research shows that students canoften pass and even ace their science courses without necessarily understanding the materialcovered. Consequently, in order to have a valid and reliable assessment of students'understanding of science, it becomes necessary to supplement course grades with scores oninstruments like the FCI which have been widely disseminated and shown to be valid andreliable for the assessment of conceptual understanding.
In this section, we analyze the relationship between students' grades in their courses ofenrollment and VASS pretest performance, using data from the 1995 fall semester forcollege physics, and from the 94-95 academic year for high school physics students for thesame VASS items (since we will not have high school students' grades for the currentacademic year until this June). Furthermore, we explore the relationship between VASSand FCI but only for high school students, since college participants were not administeredthe FCL
Figure 12 shows the distribution of high school and college students' grades in theirrespective physics courses across the eight response options on items 17 and 23. In thisfigure we have lumped grades B and C as well as grades D and F. Although the contrast is
NARST`4.:()
VASS / 19
Figure 13: Distribution of high school students' on the FCI across response options onitems 17 and 23 in VASS Form P11.
sharper for one item than the other, and for college students than for high school students,the figure shows a clear relationship between students' answers on VASS and their coursegrades. In both items, the overwhehning majority of both high school and college studentswith grades of A were inclined towards the expert view (alternative (b) in both cases), andthere were a higher proportion of A students showing an expert tendency (options 5, 6, or7) than any other students. Furthermore, and especially in item 23, there were a higherproportion of high risk students (grades D and F) than any others showing an inclinationtowards the folk view. Students in the middle category (with B and C grades) were spreadout across both ends of the spectrum. Overall though, a higher proportion of this groupthan any other showed a mixed tendency. Similar patterns were observed throughout allVASS items so that we can conclude:
Expert views as well as folk views are shared by students from all courseachievement levels. However, in most VASS items:
I. The majority of high achievers (A students) shows a relatively consistenttendency towards the expert view.
2. A higher proportion of high achievers than of any other group of students isinclined towards the expert view. .
3. A higher proportion of low achievers (D and F students) than of any othergroup of students is inclined towards the folk view.
4. A higher proportion of students in the middle category (B and C students) thanin any other group shows mixed tendencies.
Figure 13 shows the distribution of high school students' choices on items 17 and 23 interms of their performance on the FCL A score of 60% on the FCI is considered to be thethreshold for Newtonian thinking, and a score of over 80% as near mastery level (Hesteneset al., 1992 & 1995). The inclination of students near mastery level towards the expertview is sharper on item 23 than on item 17. However, in both items, as in most of VASSitems:
Virtually no student whose score is over 80% on the FCI shows a tendencytowards folk views.A higher proportion of students below the Newtonian threshold than above itshow a tendency towards folk views.
21 April 1996
20 / Otattoun de Hestenu
Comparison of Student Views in Different DisciplinesThree separate forms of VASS with parallel items are currently available for biology
(B11), chemistry (C11), and physics (P11). Like form P11, forms B11 and C11 aredesigned for use in high school and college. In this section, we report on the variability ofstudents' views in the three disciplines, illustrating with results from introductory collegecourses.
So far, the three forms of VASS have been administered in the current academic year to523 biology students, 345 chemistry students and 351 physics students respectively, allenrolled in introductory college level courses. Figure 14 compares responses of the threecollege groups on items 17 and 23 in the respective VASS forms. Figures 15 and 16compare the performance of these groups on the two considered dimensions and the entireVASS, and Table 1 summarizes the results depicted in these two figures.
As can be seen in Figute 14, the response trend is not the same kr the three groupson individual items, and the trend varies from one item to another. However, and asillustrated in Figures 15 and 16, as well as in Table 1, physics students were overall moreconsistent in expressing a tendency toward expert views than chemistry and biologystudents across all seven VASS dimensions. Chemistry students were more consistent thanbiology students in expressing such a tendency across the four epistemological dimensions.Biology students were more consistent than chemistry students in expressing a tendencytowards expert views across the three pedagogical dimensions.
Percentage d College Students
30
10
Permtage d College Students
30-
ftiir-010
P11
0 Film
ASS 20-Form01311IMIC11 10-
1 2 35 6 7 8Resporse optlons on Item 17
VASS
Form
0811IIC1111E11311
INE25 8 7 8Response optims on Item 23
Figure 14: Distribution of college students responses on items 17 and 23 in various VASS forms.
Table 1Percentage of college students showing consistent expert tendencies
in VASS Forms B11, C11 and P 11 respectively
VASS Items Group Biology Chemistry Physics
All 9 Critical Thinking items 1 1 1
5 Critical Thinking items or more 35 28 40
All 6 Structure items 1 1 5
4 Structure items or more 21 38 46
17 items or more on an entire VASS 36 33 40
NARST2 A
VASS / 21
Virtually all traditional instruments that have been developed so far to assess studentviews about science do not discriminate between the various scientific disciplines. Thesame instrument with items talking about "science" is administered to various studentgroups as if there were no differences in student views regarding different disciplines.VASS results show that this is not a warranted practice, and that important informationabout the variability of student views across disciplines will be lost.
Percentage of College Biology Studs*
20
10
19 20
1515
1111 1 I9
2
0123
11
6
I. 1.1 0.8
.458789
Percentage of College Biolcgy Students
30 23
VASS
811 io
Number of Items wih expeit Vans ki aft& Ming
Percentage of Co lisge Mashy Students
21
20
10
19 19
17
15
VMS611
1 2 3 4 6 6Nutter of fterns wth expert view about the Structure cf Science
Percentage of College Chemistry Monde
30 29
16 20
2 I I III 0.41 9
1
11 12
VASS 10 10
C114
0 --. 1=10 OM _ NOM
0 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 34 5 8Bunter ot hen with eyed view In Critical Thinldng Number of Items wilh expert eisw *oaths %wane of Science
Percentage of Colege Physice Students
Percentage of College Physics Students 30
20
24
VMSC11
2018 19
1520 19
25
18
108 VASS
P11 1 VAsSPt t
0 1 2 3 4 5 ? 8 9
Nuintet of ferns with wiped view In Mal ?hiding
0 t 2 3 4 6 8Nianbw of Items with aped view about the Stnxture of Science
Figure 15: Distributions of college students showing expert tendency on a given totalnumber of items in Critical Thinldng and Structure in VASS Form B11,C11 and P11.
April 1996
22 / Hatfoun Sestents
Percentage of College Biology Students
10
8
6
4
2
02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 29
Percentage of College Chemistry Students11
10
8
6
4
2
00.4 0.4rp2 7
10
9 11 13 15
Percentage of College Physics Students10 9
8
6
4
2
17I 0.8
IP1.9 2.1 23 25
VASSC11
VASSP11
0.3 0.3
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 27
Figure 16: Distribution of college students showing expert tendency on a given totalnumber of items in VASS Forms B11, C11 and P11.
NARST
VASS / 23
Comparison of Student Views across Demographic StrataIn addition to CAD items assessing student epistemological and pedagogical views
about science, we have documented data about the social and educational backgrounds ofparticipants, and their expectations about the courses in which they were enrolled. Thepurpose was to analyze the relationship of such data to respondents views about scienceand classroom performance.
Social data included age, gender, ethnic background, and residence. Educational dataincluded grade, major, number of high school and college courses completed in variousscientific and mathematical fields, self-rated competence in these fields and of reading andwriting skills as well as of computer skills. Course expectations were about understandingcourse materials and performance on homewoiks, laboratory and exams.
Results pertaining to these data are beyond the scope of this paper. However, sincegender is currefitly a hot issue in many educational and epistemological circles, it would behelpful to contribute some of what VASS shows in this respect
Figure 17 compares female and male responses on VASS form Pll in college physicscourses. Table 2 compares genders with respect to consistency in showing an experttendency across items in the considered two dimensions and the entire VASS in collegebiology, chemistry and physics courses. As can be seen in these Figure and Table, genderdifferences are not the same across items. However, participating college female studentswere more consistent than males in expressing expert tendencies on various items withina given dimension or across an entire VASS form. This holds true in all three disciplines,although not to the same degree as can be seen in Table 2.
A similar gender comparison at the high school level revealed virtually no genderdifference at all. Motivation might be a factor in this issue that shows its impact more atthe college level than at the high school level.
Table 2Gender comparison of college students' consistency in showing expert tendencies
Biology
Female Male
Chemistry
Female Male
Physics
Female Male
Percentage of college group 60 40 34 66 32 68
5 Critical Thinldng items or more 36 34 34 25 45 36
4 Structure items or more 21 21 44 34 48 45
17 items or more on an entire VASS 38 33 34 30 41 40
'25April 1996
24 / otatrentn de Hestena
Poroontooe ot College Phyllis; Ettudorts
30
20.
10
Percentage of Cave Physics Stx lents
20
10
0 5
VASS P11
CI Falai,Melo
r-0116 6 7Rosportso aptlem or kw 17
0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9Number of kerne wkh wed New h Cddcal Ttaidog
VASS pu
0 FemaleMale
Percentage of College Physics Students
12 -
10
8
6
4
2
0 Ft s[lprild4 6 8 10 12
Panama, et Ccapo Physics ewer*.30
10
VASS P11
El Female
Male
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mother of Rans wth wed New tbout toe SbttwectSdence
I
ra
14 16 18 20 22 24 27
ID FemaleMale
Number of items with expert view on the entire VASS Form P11
Figure 17: Gender comparison of college students' performance on VASS Form P11.
t) AIco I.
NARST
VASS / 25
ConclusionFollowing the administration of VASS to thousands of high school and college students
enrolled in physics, chemistry and biology courses, and analysis of our data, we canconclude the following:
1. High school and college students hold folk views about knowing and learning sciencethat are incompatible with views commonly held in the scientific and educationalcommunities.
2. Students do not show a consistent tendency towards one type of views or another.Every high school and college student holds a mixture of folk and expert views aboutany of the epistemological and pedagogical dimensions assessed in VASS.
3. Expert views about knowing and learning science are not shared unanimously by highschool teachers or university professors. There is generally a higher consent on theseviews among university professors than among high school teachers.Unlike their students who often position themselves in the middle between twocontrasting views, teachers are polarized towards a specific type of views, which ismost often the expert view.
4. Traditional science courses have no significant effect on students' views. Ironically, inmany cases, students shift further away from expert views about knowing and learningscience after completing science courses.
5. Student folk views are deep-seated and do not change significantly even after manyyears of high school and college schooling. A non-significant gradual shift from mixedtendencies to expert tendencies is observed in going from grade 9 through grade 14.There is virtually no shift across these grades from folk tendencies to expert tendenciesor even to mixed tendencies.
6. The relationship between student views about knowing and learning science, on the onehand, and learning science, on the other hand, is not reciprocal. Learning science doesnot affect student views, but these views seem to affect the outcome of learning. Thehighest proportion of students showing a specific tendency is among high achievers forexpert tendency, high risk students for folk tendency, and students in the middlecategory for mixed tendency.
7. Students enrolled in biology, chemistry and physics courses do not share exactly thesame views about their respective disciplines, and the degree of consistency inexpressing a given type of views varies from one discipline to another. Physicsstudents are most consistent in showing an expert tendency across all seven VASSdimensions, followed by chemistry students across epistemological dimensions, and bybiology students across pedagogical dimensions.
8. There are gender differences with respect to student views about knowing and learningany science at the college level but not at the high school level. Females are generallymore inclined than males toward expert views, and more consistent in expressing atendency toward such views.
Further analysis of our data is expected to reveal more infonnation about student andteacher views about science. Among other things, we still need to undertake the following:
1. Analysis of differences between the eight options in CAD items and the relationship ofindividual options to understanding science.
April 1996
26 / Ha a oun de Hatenes
2. Identification of a limited number of profiles, if possible, and analysis of the impact ofeach profile on understanding science.
3. Exploring ways for scoring VASS, and, if a valid and reliable way is found, runningappropriate quantitative analysis.
4. Thorough comparison of student views and teacher views and the impact of the latteron the former.
5. Thorough analysis of VASS items in terms of demographic data.
6. Development of new VASS forms along the same and other dimensions formathematics (in progress) and lower and upper level science courses.
Our project is an ambitious project VASS will be disseminated at a still wider scalewithin and outside the USA. A large data base will be established, and continuous analysiswill be conducted to learn more about student and teacher views and their impact on studentunderstanding of science. Results will be used in the development of new science curriculaat all levels.
Results that we have obtained so far with VASS and other conceptual surveys (Halloun& Hestenes, 1985a & b; Hestenes et al., 1992) are enough to convince us that a majorityof students at all levels is not benefiting enough from traditional science instruction. Thisdeficit is apparent within the specific domain of individual disciplines as well as at the levelof scientific literacy in general. Major reform is thus well justified. We have already startedwoiidng in this direcdon within the field of physics at the high school level, and we willsoon start at the college level*. With the collaboration of interested educators, work alongthe same lines will follow in other disciplines.
AcknowledgmentWe thank all colleagues and students who made this work possible. Many colleaguesparticipated at different levels in reviewing the various VASS versions. Dale Baker, JamesBirk, David Halliday, Jane Jackson, Anton Lawson and Michael Politano were especiallyhelpful in this respect. This work would not have been possible without the voluntary andvalued participation of the many schools and universities across the country. The assistanceof Sharon Osborn Popp was instrumental in the statistical analysis of the data.
This work has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation.
* For information about our reform project, please visit our worldwide web page at:http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.htmlor write us at the address on the front page.
For an electronic copy of VASS, please visit the www page above, or send an emailrequest to:Prof. Ibrahim Halloun <[email protected]>and specify the desired form(s) (B12, C12, P12, or M12 for mathematics. Theserevised forms will be available after April 20, 1996).
NARST ,
VASS / 27
References
AAAS. (1990). Science for All Americans. Project 2061. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Project 2061. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. W., and Ryan, A. G. (1987). High-school graduates'beliefs about science-technology-society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring studentviews. Science Education, 71 (2), 145-161.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1988). An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STStopics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25 (8), 607-629.
Baker, D. R. & Piburn, M. (1991). Process skills acquisition, cognitive growth, andattitude change of ninth grade students in a scientific literacy course. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 28 (5), 423-436.
Barrington, B. L. & Hendricks, B. (1988). Attitudes toward science and scienceknowledge of intellectually gifted and average students in third, seventh, and eleventhgrades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25 (8), 679-687.
Bernard, C. (1865). Introduction a l'Etude de la Médecine Expérimentale. Paris:Flarnmarion.
Bunge, M. (1973). The Methodological Unity of Science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Changeux, J. P. (1983). L'homme Neuronal. Paris: Fayard.
Cobern, W. W. (1993). College students' conceptualizations of nature: An interpretiveworld view analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (8), 935-951.
Cooley, W. W. & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Test on Understanding Science. EducationalTesting Service, Princeton.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of ReflectiveThinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.
Ebenezer, J. V. and Zoller, U. (1993). The No Change in Junior Secondary Students'Attitudes Toward Science in a Period of Curriculum Change: A Probe into the Case ofBritish Columbia. School Science and Mathematics, 93 (2), 96-102.
Edmondson, K. M. & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemologicalviews, learning strategies, and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 30 (6), 547-559.
Ericsson, K.A. & Charness, N. (1994). Expert Performance. Its Structure andAcquisition. American Psycologist, 49 (8), 725-747.
Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind's New Science. A History of the Cognitive Revolution.New York, NY: Basic Books.
Germann, P. J. (1988). Development of the attitude toward science in school assessmentand its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitudetoward science in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25 (8), 689-703.
29 April 1996
28 / Naffoun de Mutates
Giere, R.N. (1988). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.
Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 28 (1), 73-79.
Gilovich, T. (1991). How We Know What Isn't So. New York: The Free Press,Macmillan.
Ginsburg, H. & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget's ThedrY of Intellectual Development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grossberg, S. (1982). Studies of Mind and Brain. BSPS. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students.American Journal of Physics, 53 (11), 1043-1055.
Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. AmericanJournal of Physics, 53 (11), 1056-1065.
Halloun, I. (1994). Assessing Student Views about Physics. Hoi 1 Adequate areAvailable Instruments? Invited paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Association of Physics Teachers, Notre Dame, IN.
Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic Modeling for Meaningful Learning of Physics.Manuscript submitted for publication.
Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic Concepts for Schematic Models of the Real WorkLManuscript submitted for publication.
Harre, R. (1959). The Principles of Scientific Thinking. Chicago, IL: U. of ChicagoPress
Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling Games in the Newtonian World. American Journal ofPhysics, 60(8), 732-748.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. ThePhysics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, E.E. (1986). Interpreting Interpersonal Behavior: The Effects of Expectancies.Science, 234, 41-46.
Kimball, M. E. (1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientistsand science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
Klahr, D. (1976). Cognition & Instruction. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.
Klopfer, L. E. (1969). Effectiveness and effects of ESSP astronomy materials. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 6, 64-75.
Krynowsky, B.A. (1988). Problems in assessing student attitude in science education: Apartial solution. Science Education, 72 (4), 575-584.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Ed. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
3 0NARST
VASS / 29
Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (19'74). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1986). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal Aboutthe Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lecourt, D. (1974). Bachelard: Epistimologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Lederman, N. G. and O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perception of tentativeness inscience: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74 (2), 225-239.
Lochhead, J. & Clement, J., Eds. (1979). Cognitive Process Instruction. Philadelphi,PA: The Franklin Institute Press.
Mackay, L. D. (1971). Development of Understanding about the Nature of Science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8 (1), 57-66.
Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, Thinking, and Cognition. A Theory of Judgment.Chicago, IL: U. of Chicago Press.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on student views about the natureof science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (5), 429-443.
Munby, H. (1983). Thirty studies involving the "Scientific Attitude Inventory": Whatconfidence can we have in this instrument? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20 (2), 141-162.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: TheImperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.
National Resesarch Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (1993). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination ofSecondary School Science. Volume 1. The Content Core. Washington, DC: NSTA.
National Science Teachers Association. (1995). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination ofSecondary School Science. Volume 3. A High School Framework for NationalScience Education Standards. Washington, DC: NSTA.
Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning.University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the CollegeYears. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York.
Piaget, J. (1972). The Psychology of Intelligence. Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield Adams.
Popper, K.R. (1983). Realism and the Aim of Science. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.
Redish, F. E., & Saul, J. (1995, January). The Distribution of Student Expectationsand Attitudes in Introductory University Physics. Paper presented at the AAPTWinter Meeting, Orlando, Florida.
31 April 1996
30 / Haaoun Hestenu
Rennie, L. J., & Parker, L. H. (1987). Scale dimensionality and population heterogeneity:Potential problems in the interpretation of attitude data. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 24 (6), 567-577.
Resnick, L. B., Ed. (1989). Knowing, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The nature of scientific language, knowingand learning: the perspectives of four physics students. International Journal ofScience Education, 15 (1), 27-44.
Rubba, P.A., & Andersen, H.O. (1978). Development of an Instrument to AssessSecondary School Students' Understanding of the Nature of Scientific Knowledge.Science Education, 62 (4), 449-458.
Schibeci, R.A. & Riley, J.P. (1986). Influence of students' background and perceptionson science attitudes and achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 177-187.
Schmidt, D.J. (1967). Test On Understanding Science: A comparison among severalgroups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 365-366.
Simon, H.A. (1979). Models of Thought. New Haven, MA: Yale U. Press.
Simpson, R. D. & Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievementmotivation profiles of male and female science students in grades six through ten.Science Education, 69 (4), 511-526.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influenceknowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), 761-784.
Squire, L.R. (1986). Mechanisms of Memory. Science, 232, 1612-1619.
Stewart, J. (1985). Cognitive science and science education. European Journal of ScienceEducation, 7 (1), 1-17.
Symington, D. & Spurling, H. (1990). The 'Draw a Scientist Test': interpreting the data.Research in Science & Technology Education, 8 (1), 75-77.
Tobin, K. Ed. (1993). The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ullmo, J. (1969). La Pens& Scientifique Moderne. Paris: Flammarion.
Welch, W. W. and ?ella, M. 0. (1967). The development of an instrument forinventorying knowledge of the processes of science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 5, 61-68.
